Posts

Bipartisan Coalition Rejects Democrats’ Call to Pack Supreme Court

A bipartisan group dominated by former state attorneys general is pushing back against proposals from congressional Democrats and progressive activists to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices.

“We feel that court packing, adding or for that matter subtracting justices for political advantage, is wrong,” former Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers, an independent, told The Daily Signal. “It would denigrate the rule of law [in favor of] the rule of men. It undermines the independence of the Supreme Court.”

Summers is part of the Coalition to Preserve the Independence of the Supreme Court, which calls itself “Keep Nine” for short in a reference to the nine justices on the high court.

The coalition, with 27 members, has grown to include former members of Congress and former governors.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


The organization is promoting a 13-word constitutional amendment that says simply: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices.”

On the cusp of President Donald Trump’s nomination of another woman to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week, some Democrats have insisted that adding justices would be appropriate revenge for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stated intention to hold a confirmation vote on the nominee.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., tweeted about the Kentucky Republican: “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a force in House Democrats’ freshman class, also has indicated support for packing the high court.

“I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available [at] our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters Sunday.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., reportedly told fellow Senate Democrats on Saturday that “nothing is off the table for next year” if Republicans move to fill the vacant seat on the high court.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer in tweeting: “If Republicans recklessly & reprehensibly force a SCOTUS vote before the election—nothing is off the table.”

Passing a constitutional amendment to preserve the current total of nine Supreme Court justices would not be easy, Summers said, but noted that the process of amending the Constitution has been completed 27 times in the nation’s history.

“It will be hard to pass a constitutional amendment, but it will be harder on the country to denigrate a separate and equal branch of government,” said Summers, who was Tennessee’s attorney general from 1999 to 2006 and later served as a state appeals court judge. “If one party packs the court, then another party will win power and pack the court, and you could have 27 justices or more.”

A former Democratic attorney general from Virginia, Andrew Miller, contacted Summers about allying with the “Keep Nine” coalition.

“Court packing by one party would almost inevitably lead to retaliatory court packing by another party, undermining the independence of the court and potentially the rule of law itself,” Miller said in a written statement.

Exactly 231 years ago–on Sept. 24, 1789–Congress created a six-member Supreme Court. That same day, President George Washington signed the legislation and nominated the first chief justice and five associate justices. The Constitution doesn’t specify a total number, though, and it varied in the 19th century until stabilizing at nine since 1869.

A constitutional amendment to keep the court at nine justices “should be seriously considered,” said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“All of this talk about court packing is dangerous and divisive,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “The number is not set in the Constitution, but nine has worked pretty well for a long time.”

Voters support a “Keep Nine” amendment by a 3-1 margin, according to a John Zogby Strategies poll cited by the coalition.  Democrats back the amendment by a 2-1 margin, the poll found, while self-described independents and moderates back the proposal by nearly 4-1.

Other coalition members include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a Republican who also served as the first U.S. homeland security secretary; former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who also is a former attorney general; George Jepsen, a Democrat who was Blumenthal’s successor as Connecticut’s attorney general; former New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, a Democrat; and former California Controller Steve Westly, a Democrat.

During his second term, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to add justices to the Supreme Court  and force the retirement of others when the high court ruled against certain New Deal programs. However, fellow Democrats stepped in to oppose the move.

It’s not a better idea today, Summers said.

“There was an attempt by FDR to pack the court,” Summers said. “It just divided the president’s allies and emboldened his opponents.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Help The Daily Signal Cover the New Supreme Court Nominee Fairly

He’s a Friend of Supreme Court Prospect Amy Coney Barrett. Here’s What He Has to Say.


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Democrats are conspiring with the Russians to discredit President Trump

The Democrats keep yelling “the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.” Why?

There have been many theories about the sudden interest on any and all connections between President Trump and his cabinet with the Russians by Democrats. Among these are: the Russians hacked the election, the Russians stole the election from Hillary Clinton, any contact with any Russian official or surrogate is grounds for dismissal or even impeachment.

Perhaps we should look back at what the Obama administration did to appease, if not become a surrogate for, Russia:

  1. Obama abandoned the missile defense system in Europe shelving deployment of U.S. missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, citing new intelligence that the missile threat from Iran was minimal. Victory: Russia and Iran.
  2. Obama called for a “reset” of Russian/U.S. relations. On 6 March 2009 in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red button with the English word “reset” and the Roman alphabet transliteration of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet word перегрузка (“peregruzka”.) Victory: Russia and Iran.
  3. Obama tells Russian President Dmitry Medvedev more flexibility after the 2012 election. Obama stated that Vladimir Putin should give him more “space” and that “[a]fter my election I have more flexibility.” Victory: Russia, Iran, Syria
  4. Obama’s “red line” in Syria if Assad used chemical weapons. Red line policy ignored when Assad uses chemical weapons a second time. Victory: Russia and Syria.
  5. Finally, Obama’s deal with Iran on development of nuclear weapons. Victory: Iran, Russia and ISIS.

Democrats consider Obama’s Iran deal his signature foreign policy success. Here are Obama’s remarks on the Iran deal:

Obama’s foreign policy has emboldened Russia as the key force in the Middle East and at the same time given Iran the cover it needs to continue its nuclear program. Iran is now the hegemonic power in the Middle East, with the help of Russia, and is training and exporting radical Islamists to do its bidding globally.

As former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said July 28, 2009, after the latest of six trips to the Gulf in the last 18 months, that “what I hear is, there is greater fear of Iran than there is animus toward Israel.” He added, “So that is almost a predominant sentiment that I’ve noticed throughout most, if not all, of the Gulf states” (Washington Times, July 29, 2009).

pelosi schumer putinThis is the reason that Democrats have tried to tie President Trump’s hands when it comes to Russia.

For if President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are successful in engaging Russia in the fight against ISIS and if President Trump can decouple Russia from Iran then the Obama foreign policy legacy will be gone. The Iran deal will be no more. Iran will be de-fanged and will not be the threat that it currently is to its Gulf state neighbors such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Israel.

Democrats working with the Russians are doing everything they can to put President Trump into a box when it comes to negotiating with Russia. That is good for Russia, Iran and Syria’s Assad.

Democrats want America to be weak in its foreign policy and weak even before President Trump meets with Russian President Putin.

The Democrats, along with Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio are hurting President Trump’s foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East and with Russia. That is the goal.

That is why the Democrats, and perhaps the “Axis of Evil” Republican Senators McCain, Graham and Rubio, are in effect conspiring with the Russians.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mark Levin to GOP: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump

Hold Iran accountable for terrorism: Sen. Cruz and Rep. McCaul

RELATED PHOTOGRAPHS:

pelosi with russian president medvedev

schumer putin 3

New York U.S. Senate Delegation splits on Iran Nuclear Plan

The New York Times and Medium reported a split decision in the New York Senate delegation over the mid-September vote on the Iran nuclear pact.  Senator Charles Schumer came out in opposition; Senator Gillibrand came out in favor, despite some misgivings.  Looks like President Obama might have a problem gathering votes among the remaining undecided Democrat Senators.  The Times reported:

Senator Chuck Schumer, the most influential Jewish voice in Congress, said Thursday night that he would oppose President Obama’s deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program.

“Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed,” Mr. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a lengthy statement. “This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”

Mr. Schumer had spent the last several weeks carrying a dog-eared copy of the agreement in his briefcase and meeting with Mr. Obama and officials like Wendy R. Sherman, the deal’s chief negotiator. With his decision, he paves the way for other Democrats on the fence to join Republicans in showing their disapproval.

“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way,” Mr. Schumer said. “While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion.”

New York U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced her support for the Iran pact in a Medium report:

I have decided to support this deal after closely reading the agreement, participating in multiple classified briefings, questioning Energy Secretary Moniz and other officials, consulting independent arms control experts, and talking with many constituents who both support and oppose this deal. Here is why I believe this imperfect deal is worthy of Congressional approval:

  • First, Iran made essential concessions in the deal. After the failure of the 2004 Paris Agreement, Iran was defiant; it refused to negotiate seriously, it was uncooperative with international weapons inspectors, and it vowed never to cave to pressure and dismantle its nuclear production, which increased dramatically during the Bush years. Now, Iran has signed on to a sufficiently verifiable and enforceable deal that cuts off all paths to a bomb and has its entire nuclear supply chain closely monitored for years to come. A deal like this, widely supported by independent nuclear arms control experts, was unimaginable just a few years ago.
  • Second, this deal will provide international nuclear inspectors with access that they otherwise would not have had — and never will have if we reject this agreement. We will begin robust worldwide monitoring of Iran’s nuclear supply chain — uranium production, plants that convert uranium into a centrifuge-ready gas, centrifuges, uranium stockpiles, and spent nuclear fuel that contains plutonium — and inspectors will retain the right to request access to suspicious sites forever.
  • Third, while I’m skeptical that Iran won’t try to deceive us and our partners in this agreement, we’ll be in a better position to catch those attempts due to the monitoring and verification mechanisms that this deal secures. If Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, international inspectors and intelligence operations will know faster than ever before. We will then be able to snap back all of the American and United Nations sanctions, even unilaterally, and all options — including military action — will be on the table.

[…]

There are legitimate and serious concerns about this deal. For example, I would have liked to see a period shorter than 24 days to resolve disputes over access for inspectors. The U.N. embargoes on the sales of arms and ballistic weapons to Iran should have remained in place permanently, instead of lapsing after five and eight years. Hostages remain in Iranian custody. We will have to work hard to fight Iran’s malign efforts to wreak havoc in the region. While all of these issues are important, no issue matters more than ensuring that the Iranian regime does not have a nuclear weapon at its disposal.

So while upstate New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand chose to support the President’s Iran nuclear deal downstate Senate colleague and future Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer elected to oppose President Obama announcing he would vote to reject the Iran nuclear pact.

At the Times Square Rally on July 22nd you may recall there were shouts of “where was Chuck?” Looks like he succumbed to the thousands of calls from constituents, major donors and possibly the tawdry hearing record of facts piling up in Congressional testimony about how bad the deal was hailed by the President and Secretary Kerry.

The importance of Schumer’s decision will not be lost on the White House. Let’s see if this translates into a potential no vote by many of the remaining undecided Democrats in the Senate.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Et Tu, Schu?

“Schumer is not a Shomer” were the words emblazoned on dozens of placards that were held by some of the 12,000 people who flooded Times Square last week to protest the “Death to America/Death to Israel” deal that Barack Obama and his cronies made on July 14th with––to this day, to this hour––a palpably belligerent, anti-Western, anti-Semitic Iran.

The placards––and the demonstration in front of the senator’s New York City office the next day––were to implore him to stop evading the subject with mealy-mouthed language (“I’ll go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”) and to reject the deal outright, vote against it in Congress, and convince at least 13 of his colleagues on the left to vote against the horrific deal. Congress is now reviewing the deal and will vote on September 17, in less than 50 days.

In short, to block the Iran deal, 67 Senators need to vote against it; 59 Senators are already committed to doing just that; and 14 are undecided, Sen. Schumer among them.

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) said that, “We have listened to Senator Schumer for years and how he takes every opportunity to explain the origin of his name Schumer and what it means for him to be a proud “Shomer”––which in Hebrew means protector. Now is the time to live up to your claim and put your words into action.”

Last week, The New York Post asked Sen. Schumer 10 key questions about Iran––including if he had any input into the agreement, what he thought of its 24-day advance notice for inspections, and whether the deal raises new concerns for Israel––none of which he has answered to this day!

To Schumer’s lame statement that he is “studying the issue,” the Post responded: “Studying the issue? Please. There’s nothing to study: Just nix the deal, Chuck….Schumer doesn’t need to `study’ the deal. He needs to study his conscience.”

Personally, I can hardly remember a Sunday-night news broadcast since Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 when he wasn’t in front of the camera proposing actions to keep his uber-left constituents happy.

He was Chuckie-on-the-spot when it appeared that Adidas might outsource production overseas, in a plant where Schumer said 100 workers were at risk. But for the past three years, as the ayatollahs have menacingly threatened to annihilate Israel, deadly silence from Schumer. One-hundred potential injuries more important than over-six-million deaths!

He was an early and enthusiastic backer of the national disaster known as Obamacare, and is a reliable opponent of guns, an advocate of open borders, and a full-throated supporter of abortion.

When the Planned Parenthood medical ghouls came out last week to reveal their sale of infant body parts (and the exquisite care taken to “crush” the fetus in strategic places, the better to preserve those parts), deadly silence from Schumer. I guess the 1.2-million fetuses destroyed each year in the U.S. are, in Schumer’s mind, equal to over-six-million expendable Israelis, not even worthy of mention.

But I digress. This article is not to discuss the, ahem, value systems of leftists.

CLAMMING UP

In June 2008––five months before Barack Obama began to occupy the White House––Senator Schumer wrote an op-ed in The Wall St. Journal, stating that cooperative economic sanctions from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China could topple Iran’s theocratic government.

Clearly, the passage of time and his current position have changed his tune. Today, Schumer is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, behind Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin. But Schumer has his eyes on a bigger prize, to replace Harry Reid in 2017.

So there you have it. Schumer’s dilemma is clear––to be a loyal lackey to Barack Obama, the better not to lose his potential position of power, or to be the New York Jewish Senator he was in the past, a vocal and impassioned supporter of Israel.

For a full three years, Senator Schumer has known about every facet of the deal being made by the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) P(for permanent members)5+1 group (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France, plus Germany).

  • Schumer knew that when Obama said that the final deal would only lift nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, it was a lie–– but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that when Obama said “U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal,” it was a lie––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that the promise to maintain sanctions on ballistic missile development was a lie–––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that when Obama said the deal would make it nearly impossible for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, police, intelligence services and paramilitary groups to do business, it was a lie—but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that Obama and Co. were keeping two key parts of the deal secret. As spelled out by blogger Jeff Dunetz, the two covert deals would be kept away from other nations from Congress, and from the American people. They include: (1) the inspection of the Parchin military complex and other Iranian military sites which are off-limits to nuclear inspectors under the agreement, sites long suspected of harboring both long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, and (2) and Iran’s failure to disclose its past nuclear-related military and procurement activities. As the national president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton A. Klein, called the deal disturbing. “The U.S. and other powers having caved on every substantive issue which we were once assured would be included in the eventual agreement, like dismantling centrifuges, shuttering certain nuclear facilities, free and unfettered inspections, disclosure of past nuclear-related military and procurements activities, maintaining non-nuclear sanctions, and so on…” Yep––he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that the deal gave Iran 24 days to allow any inspections of their nuclear facilities, more than ample time to clean them up––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that Barack Obama, in order to bypass both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Constitution he loathes, would send the agreement straight to that repository of socialists, communists, tin pot dictators, and anti-Semites on First Avenue, the United Nations, in order to make their approval “binding” upon all U.N. members, including the United States––but he said nothing.
  • Schumer knew that as a “signing bonus,” Iran–– already the world’s leading state sponsor of Islamic terrorism, which has violated 20 international treaties––is to receive $150-billion dollars in sanctions relief, with which no one doubts they will continue financing terrorist groups like ISIS and Hamas and Hezbollah, destabilizing Sunni Arab regimes, and calling incessantly for the death of all Jews, the annihilation of Israel, and the utter destruction of America––but he said nothing.
  • Most egregious, Schumer knew the most malevolent part of the deal, article 10, which promises to protect the Iran nuclear program from sabotage and attack, removing the last option Israel has to protect herself. The U.S. actually promised to intervene against Israel on Iran’s behalf! And Senator Schumer said nothing! Sec. of State John Kerry, the architect of this anti-American deal (surprise, surprise!) conceding to the Senate the other day that the US would defend Iran’s nuclear program from Israeli sabotage––but Schumer said nothing.

Silence, deafening silence, thundering silence, craven silence, immoral silence––week after week after month after month after year after year after year! Such is the picture of the abject lust for power, so overpowering that it eclipses even a vestige of the character and moral fiber that once existed.

A TIME OF RECKONING

Now is the time of reckoning, writes Jonathan S. Tobin in Commentary magazine online. “For once, Schumer must choose. It is one thing for those whose support for Israel has always been secondary to their left-wing ideology or pro-Obama partisanship (such as the J Street lobby or the National Jewish Democratic Council) to endorse this brazen act of appeasement. For Schumer, a man who has staked his career on being the shomer (guardian) of Israel’s security in Congress, it would be a stunning betrayal that he would never live down.”

Tobin then poses an ominous warning: “Even if [Schumer] chooses to vote in favor of a resolution that seeks to nullify the pact, he may also work behind the scenes to ensure that at least 34 Democrats back the president so as to ensure that an Obama veto won’t be overridden.”

Is there any doubt that Schumer––silent for three long years on this doomsday deal–is more than capable of this kind of treachery?

Rabbi Aryeh Spero, known as “America’s Rabbi,” is the author of Push Back and Why Israel Matters to You” and serves as the president of Caucus for America. Like Tobin, he questions Schumer’s seeming paralysis.

The Iran deal, he says, “is Plan A for the ultimate annihilation of Israel, annihilation through active offense and by making Israel’s defense impossible. To Iran, Mr. Obama has made the most earth-shattering compromises in the annals of history. Even Chamberlain did not provide Hitlerwith a $150 billion to armup.

“This whole deal would go nowhere, be dead on arrival, if the most powerful Democrat right now in the Senate would announce it as DOA,” Rabbi Spero continues. “That man is Sen. Chuck Schumer. Where is he? No one knows what he will do. Why should we be guessing? He should be out there, at this moment, saying No to this accord.  Why should the Israelis have to live another moment in fear and anxiety? Where is his compassion? Schumer should stifle the accord now!”

My friend Howard Bockner from Canada echoes the rabbi’s sentiments. “The US and Europe are now in bed with Iran. Israel––like the Jews in pre-war Europe––is expendable. And if Israel is made expendable you can be sure that Jews in the Diaspora will be next. That has been Obama’s Plan A all along––installing the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt to cancel the Israel-Egypt Treaty, which failed. So he doubled down on Plan B––knocking out Israel’s nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. He is also guaranteeing U.S. help to Iran against any sabotage of its nuclear facilities, i.e., putting Israel into a straight jacket.

“However, this has not all played out,” Bockner adds. “Saudi Arabia and Egypt, now two allies of Israel, will shortly get the bomb courtesy of the Russians (who don’t care who they sell to). Turkey, Algeria, and others will also be lining up for nukes, and the possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of non-state players will increase. Therefore, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster is now much closer.”

Plan A, indeed. There is no measuring the lengths and depths Obama will go to when it comes to defending his indefensible deal. According to Lee Smith at Tablet magazine, “Obama is using a dog-whistle. He’s hinting broadly at anti-Semitic conceits—like dual loyalties, moneyed interests, Jewish lobby—to scare off Democrats tempted to vote against the [deal] because they think it’s a bad deal. If they do come out against the agreement—if they line up, for instance, with the new organization AIPAC formed, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran—to warn the public “about the dangers of the proposed Iran deal,” then he’s going to tar them as dual loyalists who are willing to send Americans out to make war on behalf of Jewish causes.

According to writer Michael Ledeen, it is the mullahs who did not sign the deal in Vienna. “They don’t want to make a deal with the Great American Satan, even though they do want the American concessions, above all the huge sums of money we’ve promised them. Now comes Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei…talking as if the agreement itself is in question.”

Imagine that…Khamenei rejects the deal, but Schumer has to “go through the agreement with a fine-tooth comb”!

You’d think that just as a practical matter, Schumer’s choice would be easy. As Ari Lieberman writes in Front Page magazine, “Schumer will be around long after Obama is gone and will have to deal with the mess that will inevitably occur when Iran cheats—and let’s be clear, Iran will cheat. From building secretive underground centrifuge facilities at Fordow to illicit procurement activities in Germany, the Islamic Republic’s history is replete with a record of cheating and fabrication.”

Military historian Victor Davis Hanson warns of the perils of appeasement, be they to countries, an Iran-obsessed resident of the White House and his trusty lapdogs, or a squishy senator.

“While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the U.S. later on.

  • “First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.
  • “Second, the appeasement of autocrats always pulls the rug out from under domestic reformers and idealists. After the Western capitulation at Munich, no dissenter in Germany dared to question the ascendant dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.
  • “Third, appeasers always wrongly insist that the only alternative to their foolish concessions is war. Just the opposite is true.
  • “Fourth, beneficiaries grow to hate their appeasers. We should remember that Hitler called his Munich appeasers 1worms’ and pushed them even further.
  • “Fifth, allies are always the big losers in appeasement. Britain and France ensured the destruction of third-party Czechoslovakia by conceding to Hitler’s demands in 1938 — and doomed Poland in 1939.

“In 2015, we naively hail peace with honor, but by 2020, sadder and wiser, we will lament war and shame.”

WHAT TO DO?

A lawsuit by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch seeks to block Barack Obama’s perfidious treaty with Iran from being unconstitutionally ratified. The lawsuit names U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and Congressman Patrick Murphy, who all voted for the bill, and Obama who signed it into law. These representatives acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is posted at www.FreedomWatchUSA.org. The U.S. Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it. A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution to make any other form of international agreement. The agreement, Klayman says, will existentially endanger not only Israel but Europe and the United States.

In addition to the Times Square rally and protest in front of Sen. Schumer’s office, a groundswell of concerned citizens is flooding the White House, urging their elected representatives to vote AGAINST the Iran Nuclear Accord.

Here is the Capitol Hill Switchboard number is: 1-202-224-3121

Here is how to reach Senator Schumer’s office: 1-202-224-6542

Here’s how to reach Congressman Steve Israel: 1-201-225-3335

Suggestion: add the above two numbers to your smartphone and make it a point to call them every day until the vote. Takes two minutes!

  1. Call your local Congressperson: www.ContactingTheCongress.org
  2. Contact your Senators and Representatives: U.S. Senate: Senators of the 114th Congress
  3. Contact your Representatives here: U.S. House of Representatives Directory

Join the following organizations, which have been at the forefront of defending Israel and holding Schumer’s feet to the fire:

I didn’t mention Senator Kirsten Gillibrand because, as the NY Post says, she is simply Schumer’s “hapless little poodle.”

Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, a finance expert in NY City who organized and emceed the Times Square rally, said that he recently saw a picture of the gone-missing Gillibrand on the a milk carton. He exhorted the crowd to put pressure on Schumer to nix the Iran deal. “Chuck, this is your moment! This is your time to make the decision…or we will throw you the hell out of office!”

I also didn’t mention Hillary Clinton, who could not find it within her the other day to counter an anti-Semitic question with a defense of Israel. Except for her first run for the Senate in 2009, when she pandered shamelessly for Jewish votes, she has never been a friend of Jews or Israel, the latest proof being that she endorsed the genocidal Iran deal.

She is like Obama, who has been known to say “I’ve got Israel’s back.” How true. Both of them have put a big fat target on Israel’s back, this one earmarked for nuclear war heads!

RELATED ARTICLE: Iran can buy a lot of terror with $100 billion – The Boston Globe